eurlex-mcp-server

eurlex_consolidated

Read-onlyIdempotent

Fetches the consolidated in-force version of an EU legal act, with all amendments merged, using a CELEX ID or document type, year, and number.

Instructions

Fetches the latest consolidated (currently in-force) version of an EU legal act via ELI, with all amendments merged in. Identify the act with celex_id (e.g. "32016R0679") OR with doc_type + year + number — provide exactly one of the two. celex_id must be a sector-3 secondary-law CELEX (3YYYY[R|L|D]NNNN).

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`year`	No	Year of the act, e.g. 2024. Required together with doc_type and number when celex_id is not used.
`format`	No	Output format: xhtml=structured XHTML, plain=text with XHTML tags stripped	xhtml
`number`	No	Document number, e.g. 1689. Required together with doc_type and year when celex_id is not used.
`offset`	No	Character offset for pagination (0-based)
`celex_id`	No	CELEX ID of the original act, e.g. "32016R0679" (GDPR). Alternative to doc_type + year + number — provide exactly one of the two input forms. Must be a sector-3 secondary-law CELEX (pattern 3YYYY[R\|L\|D]NNNN).
`doc_type`	No	Document type: reg=regulation, dir=directive, dec=decision. Alternative to celex_id — provide together with year and number.
`language`	No	Language of the returned text, as a Cellar 3-letter code (any of the 24 official EU languages, e.g. DEU, ENG, FRA, POL, SPA)	ENG
`max_chars`	No	Maximum number of characters returned

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`year`	Yes
`number`	Yes
`offset`	Yes	The offset this window was sliced from
`content`	Yes	The consolidated text in the requested window/format
`eli_url`	Yes	ELI URL of the consolidated act
`doc_type`	Yes
`language`	Yes
`truncated`	Yes	True when more text remains beyond this window
`next_offset`	Yes	Offset to request next, or null when there is no more content
`total_chars`	Yes	Length of the full processed document
`returned_chars`	Yes	Length of `content`
`consolidated_celex`	Yes	Resolved consolidated CELEX, e.g. "02016R0679-20160504"
`consolidation_date`	Yes	ISO date from the CELEX "-YYYYMMDD" suffix, or null when absent

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed14 schema fields changedv2.4.4Oct 29, 2026
- removedInput schema / additionalProperties
```
Removed value: -false
```
- addedInput schema / properties / number / maximum
```
Added value: +9007199254740991
```
- addedInput schema / properties / offset / maximum
```
Added value: +9007199254740991
```
- changedOutput schema / properties / next_offset / anyOf
```
Previous value: -[
-  {
-    "type": "integer"
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "null"
-  }
-]New value: +[
+  {
+    "maximum": 9007199254740991,
+    "minimum": -9007199254740991,
+    "type": "integer"
+  },
+  {
+    "type": "null"
+  }
+]
```
- addedOutput schema / properties / number / maximum
```
Added value: +9007199254740991
```
- addedOutput schema / properties / number / minimum
```
Added value: +-9007199254740991
```
- addedOutput schema / properties / offset / maximum
```
Added value: +9007199254740991
```
- addedOutput schema / properties / offset / minimum
```
Added value: +-9007199254740991
```
- addedOutput schema / properties / returned_chars / maximum
```
Added value: +9007199254740991
```
- addedOutput schema / properties / returned_chars / minimum
```
Added value: +-9007199254740991
```
- addedOutput schema / properties / total_chars / maximum
```
Added value: +9007199254740991
```
- addedOutput schema / properties / total_chars / minimum
```
Added value: +-9007199254740991
```
- addedOutput schema / properties / year / maximum
```
Added value: +9007199254740991
```
- addedOutput schema / properties / year / minimum
```
Added value: +-9007199254740991
```
Addedv2.4.2Sep 7, 2026
Removedv2.3.0Jul 22, 2026
First observedv2.2.0Jul 10, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds one genuine behavioral fact — that amendments are merged into the returned text — but omits the fallback behavior when an act has no consolidated version and says nothing about truncation/pagination despite offset and max_chars existing.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three sentences, front-loaded with what is retrieved, followed by the identification rule and its constraint. No filler, no repetition of enum values or defaults already in the schema.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With 8 optional params, three enums, a full schema and an output schema, the description covers the two identification paths and the CELEX restriction well. The remaining gap is behavioral edge cases (no consolidated version available, pagination continuation), which keep it short of a 5.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description adds real value beyond the schema by stating the mutual-exclusivity constraint (exactly one of celex_id vs doc_type + year + number) and by narrowing celex_id to sector-3 secondary-law CELEX with the 3YYYY[R|L|D]NNNN pattern, which the schema pattern alone does not convey.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource with scope: 'Fetches the latest consolidated (currently in-force) version of an EU legal act via ELI, with all amendments merged in.' The 'consolidated / currently in-force / amendments merged' qualifier implicitly distinguishes it from eurlex_fetch or eurlex_search, but no sibling is named explicitly.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives a strong usage rule for the input forms ('provide exactly one of the two'), but that is parameter-level guidance rather than tool-selection guidance. It never says when to prefer this over eurlex_fetch, eurlex_search, or eurlex_structure, nor what to do if no consolidated version exists.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server